Nicolson, M. (2013) Community concepts in plant ecology: from Humboldtian plant geography to the superorganism and beyond. Web Ecology, 13. pp. 95-102. ISSN 2193-3081 Copyright © 2013 The Author http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/92864 Deposited on: 01 April 2014 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Web Ecol., 13, 95–102, 2013 www.web-ecol.net/13/95/2013/ doi:10.5194/we-13-95-2013 © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Open Access Open Web Ecology Community concepts in plant ecology: from Humboldtian plant geography to the superorganism and beyond M. Nicolson Centre for the History of Medicine, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RT, UK Correspondence to: M. Nicolson ([email protected]) Received: 12 March 2013 – Revised: 7 November 2013 – Accepted: 21 November 2013 – Published: 13 December 2013 Abstract. The paper seeks to provide an introduction to, and review of, the history of concepts of the plant community. Eighteenth-century naturalists recognised that vegetation was distributed geographically and that different species of plants and animals were interconnected in what would later be called ecological relation- ships. It was not, however, until the early nineteenth century that the study of vegetation became a distinctive and autonomous form of scientific inquiry. Humboldt was the first to call communities of plants “associa- tions”. His programme for the empirical study of plant communities was extended by many European and North American botanists, throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth century. There developed an al- most complete consensus among ecologists that vegetation was made up of natural communities, discrete entities with real boundaries. However, there was little agreement about the nature of the putative unit or how it should be classified. Gleason advanced the alternative view that vegetation was an assemblage of individual plants, with each species being distributed according to its own physiological requirements and competitive interactions. This debate was never wholly resolved and the divergent opinions can be discerned within early ecosystem theory. 1 Introduction These are issues that have occupied botanists and ecologists since vegetation first began to be studied systematically. This paper aims to provide a historical overview of the concept of Vegetation has always been an important aspect of human- the plant community, from its background before Humboldt, ity’s experience. We can assume that, from the earliest times, until the development of systems ecology in the latter half of a coherent and communicable classification of plant cover the twentieth century. was an essential aid to successful food gathering, hunting and the choosing of sites for agriculture. Words which iden- tify features of the Earth’s plant cover are in common use. 2 The eighteenth-century background Terms such as moor, heath, machair, tiaga, steppe, maquis, and many more, refer to familiar and apparently distinc- Early in the 18th century, Richard Bradley, professor of tive collective groupings of plants, to types of vegetation. botany at the University of Cambridge, noted that each It was not, however, until the early nineteenth century that species of insect tended to feed only upon a particular species plant communities became objects of scientific investigation. of plant (Bradley, 1718, p. 3, 58–59; Egerton, 1973). Like Alexander von Humboldt was the first explicitly to recom- many of his contemporaries, Bradley realised that differ- mend to botanists the study of what he termed “socially or- ent species of plants and animals were interconnected in ganized plant life” (von Humboldt and Bonpland, 1807, p. 7, what would later be called ecological relationships. Gilbert 2009, p. 67). But on what sort of unit should the study of White’s The Natural History of Selborne, published in 1789, vegetation be based? How could it be characterised and dis- is a classic expression of this recognition of the interdepen- tinguished from other groups? How extensive should it be? dence of species within the “oeconomy of nature” (White, Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Ecological Federation (EEF). 96 M. Nicolson: Community concepts in plant ecology 1789). Similar ideas had, however, already been well devel- 3 Alexander von Humboldt and the origins of oped in the earlier work of Carl Linnaeus (Egerton, 2007). vegetational geography As a widely travelled, practical collector of plants, Lin- naeus knew that plant species tended to grow in characteris- However, it was the work of one of Willdenow’s students tic “stations”, a concept broadly similar to the modern idea that established the study of vegetation as a distinctive and of “habitat” (Linnaeus, 1762; Limoges, 1972). He observed, autonomous form of scientific inquiry (Nicolson, 1987). In moreover, that groups of different species tend to be found 1793, Alexander von Humboldt first set out the programme growing together in similar situations, as in his famous floris- for a new form of plant geography, which was distinctively tic characterisations of the bog and marsh vegetation of Scan- different from the floristic studies of the Linnean tradition. dinavia (Du Rietz, 1957). Linnaeus also described the zona- He argued that botanists should not confine themselves to the tion of vegetation around the shores of lakes, and noted how, study of descriptive taxonomy and nomenclature, nor should over time, the plants of one zone replaced those of another. they be preoccupied with the distribution of individual plant Both Linnaeus and Albrecht von Haller described the alti- species. The central concern of the plant geographer should tudinal zonation of vegetation on the slopes of mountains be, by contrast, the collective phenomena of vegetation: (Browne, 1983). Observation of individual parts of trees or grass Eighteenth-century naturalists were, thus, well aware that is by no means to be considered plant geography; vegetation was distributed geographically and that species rather plant geography traces the connections and were interdependent upon one another. Botanists frequently relations by which all plants are bound together found it convenient to refer to vegetational features, em- among themselves, designates in what lands they ploying layperson’s terminology for this purpose. Such ref- are found, in what atmospheric conditions they live erences were often quite specific. Linnaeus, for example, in (von Humboldt, 1793, p. 9–10; Hartshorne, 1958, his Philosophia Botanica of 1751 distinguished twenty-five p. 100). different plant habitats and gave the genera characteristic of each one (Moss, 1910, p. 27). He was often very perceptive Fourteen years later, Humboldt published a fuller outline in his remarks on the distribution of vegetation. But all his of the new plant geography, the Essai sur la géographie observations on vegetation in this context were made as an des plantes (von Humboldt and Bonpland, 1807, 2009). adjunct to his concerns in plant collecting and systematics – The Essai contains an elaborate engraving, entitled Tableau they were secondary to his floristic activities. Reference to physique des Andes et pays voisins, which depicts a cross- vegetational features allowed him to specify more accurately sectional profile of the Andes, from coast to coast. In this pic- the species he was describing and where it was to be found. ture are mapped or tabulated: which plant and animal species Around the turn of the eighteenth century, the German live where, where the altitudinal zones of vegetation begin botanist Karl Ludwig Willdenow made observations of, and and end, the underlying geological structures, and physical theorised about, the relationship between climate and the ge- or meteorological data. The object was to give, in a single il- ography of plants (1792, 1805, p. 337). His Principles of lustration, a complete impression of a natural vegetational re- Botany contained much fine observation of vegetation. There gion – the “régions équinoctiales” of South America (Nicol- was, for instance, a perceptive account of what was later to son, 1996a). be termed “plant succession”: The Tableau physique also represented more local differ- entiation. Within the “régions équinoctiales” were found, The decay of these mosses and smaller plants pro- high on the mountains, a “région des lichens” and, lower duces, by degrees, a thin stratum of earth, which down, a “région des Cinchona”. These smaller sorts of veg- increases with years, and now even allows some etational region were characterised by physiognomic life shrubs and trees to grow in it, till finally, after forms, by the general appearance and habit of growth of a long series of years, where once naked barren the constituent plants. For example, “régions des lichens” rocks stood, larger forests with their magnificent were distinguishable by the obvious profusion of a number branches delight the wanderer’s eye (Willdenow, of species, all with the same lichenous life form. The study of 1805, p. 393–394). plant physiognomy was an important feature of Humboldt’s Willdenow also described the corresponding successional botanical enterprise and was one of the most decisive ways in process which begins with open water. But, like Linnaeus, which he departed from Linnaean taxonomic methods. Clas- Willdenow did not investigate vegetation for its own sake. sification of vegetation by life form was essentially indepen-